Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/21/2005 6:53:56 AM EDT
So let me get this straight-first, we were told by the DoD that this Able Danger group was a bunch of BS, and that there was no such thing and that they had no information about anything relating to 9/11 and the fact that they had identified several of the hijackers years before the event, and now, the DoD is not allowing Able Danger team members to testify before Congress. Can we then infer that such a team actually exists? And that the DoD has control of them in some way, shape, or form?Hmmmmmmmm. .. . . . . ..
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:01:35 AM EDT
wtf is able danger?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:06:07 AM EDT
The follow on group to "Harvy Danger"?


Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
wtf is able danger?

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:08:18 AM EDT
sounds like all that blame clinton for the able danger fiasco has become a bush fumble?

When it was a clinton affair, everyone wanted to open that can, Why the switch all of the sudden I wonder?

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:16:24 AM EDT
they still deny A51, what do u expect?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:20:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By trippletap:
The follow on group to "Harvy Danger"?


Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
wtf is able danger?




and inspired by Doug Danger.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:25:24 AM EDT
Is there a link to this info somewhere? Who is not allowing them to testify, and why? This is crap, and someone is hiding something. Now I REALLY want to hear their story. I'm sure there are "National Security" reasons for not letting them talk. Anything else I say is just speculation until we get some facts here.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:25:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
wtf is able danger?



Dept. Army intel group which identified Atta as a possible terrorist back in 2k.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:26:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 7:28:30 AM EDT by unkempt1]

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.



Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:35:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.






It was the year 2000 when Atta was identified. And even more damning, it was a memo by Jamie Gorelick, then assistant to AG Reno that said DoD intel could NOT be used by the FBI for prosecution. And MOST damning was Gorelick's position on the 9-11 Commission.

Get your facts straight.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:40:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.






It was the year 2000 when Atta was identified. And even more damning, it was a memo by Jamie Gorelick, then assistant to AG Reno that said DoD intel could NOT be used by the FBI for prosecution. And MOST damning was Gorelick's position on the 9-11 Commission.

Get your facts straight.



excuse me, but that is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:42:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.






It was the year 2000 when Atta was identified. And even more damning, it was a memo by Jamie Gorelick, then assistant to AG Reno that said DoD intel could NOT be used by the FBI for prosecution. And MOST damning was Gorelick's position on the 9-11 Commission.

Get your facts straight.



Which IIRC was THE LAW at the time. Correct?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:46:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.






It was the year 2000 when Atta was identified. And even more damning, it was a memo by Jamie Gorelick, then assistant to AG Reno that said DoD intel could NOT be used by the FBI for prosecution. And MOST damning was Gorelick's position on the 9-11 Commission.

Get your facts straight.



Which IIRC was THE LAW at the time. Correct?



No, it was an interpretation of law by Gorelick. There is nothing concrete that says DoD intel cannot be passed to the FBI. Sure, federal troops cannot be used for quelling civil unrest.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:48:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.






It was the year 2000 when Atta was identified. And even more damning, it was a memo by Jamie Gorelick, then assistant to AG Reno that said DoD intel could NOT be used by the FBI for prosecution. And MOST damning was Gorelick's position on the 9-11 Commission.

Get your facts straight.



Which IIRC was THE LAW at the time. Correct?



No, it was an interpretation of law by Gorelick. There is nothing concrete that says DoD intel cannot be passed to the FBI. Sure, federal troops cannot be used for quelling civil unrest.



which was gorlicks job at the time I'm assuming?


Sure, federal troops cannot be used for quelling civil unrest


not really sure where you're going here?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:48:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 8:50:18 AM EDT by Keith_J]

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By Ring:
they still deny A51, what do u expect?



they've ALWAYS denied A51, only in just the last few days has the able danger thing been swept under the rug. (attempting to sweep it under the rug i guess)

when this broke I was not on the forum, but I'd bet there was a whole lot of "clintons fault" to go around. why all of the sudden the "mums the word" syndrome. has it come to light that it was in fact something that this administration should have seen, but instead tried to claim "clintons fault"

it's just curious to me.






It was the year 2000 when Atta was identified. And even more damning, it was a memo by Jamie Gorelick, then assistant to AG Reno that said DoD intel could NOT be used by the FBI for prosecution. And MOST damning was Gorelick's position on the 9-11 Commission.

Get your facts straight.



Which IIRC was THE LAW at the time. Correct?



No, it was an interpretation of law by Gorelick. There is nothing concrete that says DoD intel cannot be passed to the FBI. Sure, federal troops cannot be used for quelling civil unrest.



which was gorlicks job at the time I'm assuming?


Sure, federal troops cannot be used for quelling civil unrest


not really sure where you're going here?



Gorelick was assistant AG to Janet"Elian Gonzales kidnapper" Reno.

Gorelick was assuming a far reaching interpretation of the Possee Comitatus Act.

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger. For that, his security clearance was revoked for 6 years and he was fined $50k. A slap on the wrist for sure.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:51:38 AM EDT

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger


sorry, I assume nothing if I can help it. and it's not like "truth" will ever spill from any politicos mouth. be they dem or rep.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:53:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:
sounds like all that blame clinton for the able danger fiasco has become a bush fumble?

When it was a clinton affair, everyone wanted to open that can, Why the switch all of the sudden I wonder?




Yeah, your boy Bubba was sooooooooo tough on terrorism.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:55:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger


sorry, I assume nothing if I can help it. and it's not like "truth" will ever spill from any politicos mouth. be they dem or rep.




Well, your first post in this thread was a HUGE assumption.

You claim you wanted to get your facts straight, but your posts show exactly which way you are leaning.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 10:08:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger


sorry, I assume nothing if I can help it. and it's not like "truth" will ever spill from any politicos mouth. be they dem or rep.




Well, your first post in this thread was a HUGE assumption.

You claim you wanted to get your facts straight, but your posts show exactly which way you are leaning.




well, first off.


which was gorlicks job at the time I'm assuming?

this would have been a better example of assuming, BUT I also wrote it as a question. so nope, no assuming there.

Secondly
My first post was also a series of questions. not an assumption. so maybe it is you that needs to get your facts straight. unless you're just a ? << see that is a question mark.

I'm leaning for the truth larry. even better I'm trying to wade through this type of rhetoric from both sides to get to said truth.

so why all of the sudden so hush hush on able danger?


Link Posted: 9/21/2005 10:10:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 10:13:57 AM EDT by unkempt1]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:
sounds like all that blame clinton for the able danger fiasco has become a bush fumble?

When it was a clinton affair, everyone wanted to open that can, Why the switch all of the sudden I wonder?




Yeah, your boy Bubba was sooooooooo tough on terrorism.





Sorry, you ASS U ME D wrong.

I'm no fan of any politico. Plenty of blame to go around IMHO
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:12:28 PM EDT
I know a cover up when i see it. But understand the politics here. Bush, unlike every other president did not unload all the previous administration schedule C appointments. I told friends at the time it would prove to be nothing but a problem for him in the future. DoD is loaded with people he should have fired but did not. His way of doing business is to keep everyone working and it worked in Texas. Talk about not ready for prime time. Even Bush 1 replaced many/most Ragan appointments as you can read it in Peggy Noonans book if I recall. If we open up this Able Danger or any other program what good would come of it? The public would find out that maybe our government was sleeping at the switch? What Democrap or RINO needs that? I think you folks out there in flyover land should try to remember the government types could not care. They have families and kids and a mortgage to pay for. Dredging up swamps is not worth it. Nothing to see here. Just move on.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:35:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:
sounds like all that blame clinton for the able danger fiasco has become a bush fumble?

When it was a clinton affair, everyone wanted to open that can, Why the switch all of the sudden I wonder?




Yeah, your boy Bubba was sooooooooo tough on terrorism.





Sorry, you ASS U ME D wrong.

I'm no fan of any politico. Plenty of blame to go around IMHO



But due to the bulk of reporting on Able Danger being on the FNC and mostly, blogosphere, the MSM dropped it when it looked like more blame would befall the leftocentric Clinton era.

Hell, back in 1998, I was fuming mad when the RINO right blasted President Clinton for bombing the Alshifa Chemical plant in Sudan. The facts are out, they were producing EMPTA for Iraq. But to this day, moonbats and RINOs uniformly claim EMPTA was never found, confusing it with a permitted organophosphate pesticide. Bullshit. There IS PAPERWORK AND FUNDING FROM IRAQ! And EMPTA has only one use, that being binary VX nerve agent, something Iraq wanted for DECADES but wasn't able to produce under UNSCOM "overlords", hence their EXPULSION from Iraq about this time back in 1998.

MSM is undoubtly leftist. See Bias and Arrogance, both by Bernie Goldberg.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:42:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 7:09:21 PM EDT by chapperjoe]
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:48:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
wtf is able danger?



The news media doesn't like to trumpet info that doesn't damage or indict Bush, I see. How surprising.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 1:03:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 1:13:57 PM EDT by vintovka]

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
I've heard from people in the know that much of their work has already been destroyed and that they will never testify to anything under oath cause much of what they did (e.g. we only know tiny bit) was illegal. Electronic data mining is tricky and legality depends on where the source of the data was and at what point the unit intercepted it. In terms of what we do know, clearly some, if not much, of the mine of data they processed to get their info was sourced domestically and not internationally - a big nono.



Nothing that Able Danger did was illegal, they (DOD/SOCOM) would go to general counsel and

get a rulling on everything. That (of course) was the problem.

As far as testifiying, if Able Danger did do anything illegal believe me the libs would be all over it.

Remeber Able Danger didn't do anything that other elements in the IC haven't done.

Also rember that LTC Shaffer was considered a "hard charger" by some and a prick by the tired

old men who fear to collect intel, so he made him self a lot of enemies, in time the truth will come

out, until then stop advancing rumors of criminal activity.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 1:06:01 PM EDT
Gee, could it be because the Clintonites and the bureaucraps who were left over don't want to get fired?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 2:20:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 7:09:44 PM EDT by chapperjoe]
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 2:29:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 2:58:39 PM EDT
Joe IM sent
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:33:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger


sorry, I assume nothing if I can help it. and it's not like "truth" will ever spill from any politicos mouth. be they dem or rep.




Well, your first post in this thread was a HUGE assumption.

You claim you wanted to get your facts straight, but your posts show exactly which way you are leaning.




well, first off.


which was gorlicks job at the time I'm assuming?

this would have been a better example of assuming, BUT I also wrote it as a question. so nope, no assuming there.

Secondly
My first post was also a series of questions. not an assumption. so maybe it is you that needs to get your facts straight. unless you're just a ? << see that is a question mark.

I'm leaning for the truth larry. even better I'm trying to wade through this type of rhetoric from both sides to get to said truth.

so why all of the sudden so hush hush on able danger?





I love it, mr 368 calling someone a troll.

Second, you ASSUMED that there was a lot of "clinton's fault" going around. That was not a question, it was an ASSUMPTION.

But, again, your boy Bubba was soooooooo tough on terrorism.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:58:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 4:59:23 PM EDT by ikor]
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:14:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 5:17:13 PM EDT by unkempt1]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger


sorry, I assume nothing if I can help it. and it's not like "truth" will ever spill from any politicos mouth. be they dem or rep.




Well, your first post in this thread was a HUGE assumption.

You claim you wanted to get your facts straight, but your posts show exactly which way you are leaning.




well, first off.


which was gorlicks job at the time I'm assuming?

this would have been a better example of assuming, BUT I also wrote it as a question. so nope, no assuming there.

Secondly
My first post was also a series of questions. not an assumption. so maybe it is you that needs to get your facts straight. unless you're just a ? << see that is a question mark.

I'm leaning for the truth larry. even better I'm trying to wade through this type of rhetoric from both sides to get to said truth.

so why all of the sudden so hush hush on able danger?





I love it, mr 368 calling someone a troll.

Second, you ASSUMED that there was a lot of "clinton's fault" going around. That was not a question, it was an ASSUMPTION.

But, again, your boy Bubba was soooooooo tough on terrorism.




again, see in the red larry........................

Post count .woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


search (sorry, can't link to search, you know what to type in)

my assumption wasn't too far off it would seem.

yawn on the

But, again, your boy Bubba was soooooooo tough on terrorism
Pure
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:09:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ikor:
Well, for sure, you can make book on a few things here...first; none of that intell was "destroyed"...it may have conviently "changed form" or maybe locations, but destroyed? Never.

Second; the guys at the Pentagon have just stepped on their collective weenies. The truth, or at least a good bit of it, will eventually "out", and some people are gonna wish desperately that it had not.

Third; it was most likely not as dramatic an "identification" as is being hyped, but that, of course, is still up in the air for now. Maybe they really "knew" or maybe they "strongly suspected".

Allegedly these guys had 2.5 TERRABYTES of intell just on this issue...all who really believe it was all destroyed get a gold star for serious optimism! This is nothing more than ALL the politicos getting together and covering everyone's ass because there is more than enough blame to go around.

Interesting, however, that Gorelick was a member of the 911 Commission, eh?

I would not be terribly surprised if LTC Shaffer and a couple of others were involved in a very bad vehicle accident before too much longer if this issue does not "go away".

Yep...MY tinfoil is on straight and tight!



The "accident" in the "vehicle" will not happen for at least 2.5 years. Clinton has been out of office for over 5 years...

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 9:38:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:

Also, one must assume Sandy "Burgular" Berger was sanitizing records at the National Archives with respect to Able Danger


sorry, I assume nothing if I can help it. and it's not like "truth" will ever spill from any politicos mouth. be they dem or rep.




Well, your first post in this thread was a HUGE assumption.

You claim you wanted to get your facts straight, but your posts show exactly which way you are leaning.




well, first off.


which was gorlicks job at the time I'm assuming?

this would have been a better example of assuming, BUT I also wrote it as a question. so nope, no assuming there.

Secondly
My first post was also a series of questions. not an assumption. so maybe it is you that needs to get your facts straight. unless you're just a ? << see that is a question mark.

I'm leaning for the truth larry. even better I'm trying to wade through this type of rhetoric from both sides to get to said truth.

so why all of the sudden so hush hush on able danger?





I love it, mr 368 calling someone a troll.

Second, you ASSUMED that there was a lot of "clinton's fault" going around. That was not a question, it was an ASSUMPTION.

But, again, your boy Bubba was soooooooo tough on terrorism.




again, see in the red larry........................

Post count .woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


search (sorry, can't link to search, you know what to type in)

my assumption wasn't too far off it would seem.

yawn on the

But, again, your boy Bubba was soooooooo tough on terrorism
Pure



YOU calling me a troll...........

I noticed that you have yet to address how tough your boy Bubba was on terrorism.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 9:40:46 AM EDT
yawn slick willie wasn't my boy.



Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:36:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:40:24 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By unkempt1:
yawn slick willie wasn't my boy.








Sheesh, been here one month and loves to post that troll symbol. What a laugh.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:41:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:42:12 AM EDT by unkempt1]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By unkempt1:
yawn slick willie wasn't my boy.








Sheesh, been here one month and loves to post that troll symbol. What a laugh.



thanks for proving my point that you're a troll..

you're not worthy of a reply.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 4:43:22 PM EDT
So what's the bottom line here. Were we fucked by our Gov't or not?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 4:53:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2005 1:34:49 AM EDT by 22bad]
Looks like there has been another development

'Able Danger' Will Get Second Hearing
September 23, 2005
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170267,00.html
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Friday reversed its earlier decision to bar key witnesses from testifying about just how much information the U.S. government had on the Sept. 11 hijackers before they led the attacks that killed 3,000 people.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has therefore scheduled a second hearing for next week on the formerly secret Pentagon intelligence unit called "Able Danger".

Former members of Able Danger say the group identified Sept. 11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, more than a year before the attacks. Although those Able Danger analysts say they told the Sept. 11 commission about their findings, former members of the panel have so far dismissed the claim.

The Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement Friday that the Pentagon now will allow five witnesses to testify. Among those are Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (search), Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott and defense contractor John Smith.

Shaffer said in written testimony last week that the Pentagon blocked him from offering information on Able Danger and its identification of Atta — the lead hijacker.

Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., had suggested that the Pentagon's refusal to allow the testimony "may be an obstruction" to the committee's work. Specter is the judiciary committee chairman.

The second hearing will focus on what happened with pre-attack charts and information allegedly destroyed at the behest of military leaders.

The committee held its first hearing Wednesday, after which senators still had questions.

"I think the Department of Defense owes the American people an explanation about what went on here," Specter said. "The American people are entitled to some answers."

Shaffer's attorney, Mark Zaid, also said that the Pentagon prevented testimony from a defense contractor that he also represents.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department had a representative at the hearing and that it had provided sufficient information to committee members.

“I think there are aspects of this as a classified program that we have expressed some concerns with respect to the appropriateness of some things in an open hearing,” Whitman told reporters after the first hearing on Wednesday. “We are working very closely to provide all the information that [committee members] need to assess Able Danger.”

Zaid fielded questions from committee members on behalf of Shaffer and contractor Smith. He testified that Able Danger, using data mining techniques, identified four of the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001.

Zaid said Shaffer would have testified about charts his team created dealing with Al Qaeda and a grainy photo on file of Atta.

“Shaffer remembers it specifically because of the evil death look in Mohamad Atta’s eyes,” Zaid said.

Pentagon officials had acknowledged earlier this month that they had found three people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Specter asked the official representing the Department of Defense at the hearing, William Dugan, the acting assistant to the secretary for intelligence oversight, if the department had any information about an Al Qaeda cell and Atta.

"I don't know," Dugan replied.

Specter asked Dugan to "find out the answers to those questions" relating to what the department knew about the workings of Able Danger.

Able Danger personnel have said they tried to give the FBI information three times, but Defense Department attorneys refused, citing legal concerns about investigations run by the military on U.S. soil, Zaid said.

Former Army Major Eric Klein Smith also testified that he was instructed to destroy data and documents related to Able Danger in May and June of 2000, in accordance with Army regulations that limited the collection and holding of information of U.S. persons.

Klein Smith said the order to destroy data was not hostile or aggressive, it was a matter of policy. Asked if this information could have prevented Sept. 11, the major said he could not speculate, but believed it would have been significant and useful.

Klein Smith said that he did not remember seeing a picture of Atta, but said he believed "implicitly" claims by Shaffer and Phillpott that they had seen Atta's picture.

Zaid told committee members that some of the secret unit's records were also destroyed in March 2001 and spring 2004.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., was the first lawmaker to come forward with claims that the Sept. 11 commission that investigated pre-attack intelligence failed to accept offers from Able Danger staff about the data it had before the attacks.

Weldon said their refusal to hear from Able Danger's members makes the government record of intelligence incomplete.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 1:34:19 AM EDT
Okay, now they can testify, just not where WE can hear it

Senator and Pentagon at Odds on Whether 'Able Danger' Witnesses Will Testify in Public
The Associated Press
Sep 24, 2005
ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBR97TGZDE.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee said Friday that the Pentagon has dropped its refusal to let five people with knowledge of a highly classified intelligence program testify about it publicly, but a Pentagon spokesman said it remained opposed to such testimony in an open hearing.

In a news release, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the five will testify at an open hearing Oct. 5.

Asked about Specter's announcement, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Our position with respect to this has not changed. Our concerns have not changed." He said the Pentagon has not agreed to permit the five to testify in public.

Whitman said the Pentagon has provided a great deal of information about the program, called "Able Danger," to the Intelligence and Armed Services committees, and will continue to do so.

Spokesmen for Specter and for the Judiciary Committee did not immediately return calls seeking comment on Whitman's remarks.

The five people Specter wants to testify in public have said they recall an intelligence chart that identified Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist inside the United States one year before the attacks on New York and Washington. But Pentagon officials who have investigated the matter say they have been unable to find the chart or evidence that it ever existed.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday, after Specter's committee held a hearing on the matter, that the Pentagon had offered to provide witnesses for a closed hearing but that the committee insisted it be open.

"Therefore the department declined to participate in an opening hearing on a classified matter," Rumsfeld told reporters. "We have to obey the laws with respect to security classifications."
Top Top